This White Labrador won’t be allowed to do this if Bill No. 3221 passes. But he will be safer, experts argue.

The days of seeing dogs' heads sticking out of passenger side windows-tongues flapping from their windblown faces-may be numbered in New Jersey. To be more specific, a proposed bill might charge the dog's owner with animal cruelty. But opponents contend that politicians have no role legislating "common sense."

New Jersey law currently prohibits the inhumane transport of animals. But politicians don't always agree on what constitutes cruelty. Vastly different interpretations of this law by members of the New Jersey Legislature have given birth to two diametrically opposed bills.

Bill No. 3221-sponsored by Assemblywoman L. Grace Spencer (D)-could establish that failure to use a pet harness in a motor vehicle is an animal cruelty offence. A violation could result in a $20 ticket and a civil penalty of up to $1,000.

"This bill would benefit the pets because unfortunately not everyone has common sense," Spencer told the Daily News. "Your dog should not be in the back of a pickup truck or hanging out of a front window, especially if the dog weighs less than 20 pounds."

Spencer's bill was partly inspired by students from a Discovery Charter School. Teachers asked students to draft a bill for an issue that was important to them. The children wanted to protect their pets. Spencer told the students that it's a good idea to be engaged in the legislative process. She also told the students that they were onto something.

Unrestrained dogs can be projected from front seat during sudden stops. This can break a dog's legs or pose other bodily harm. "I'm not saying that not restraining your pet is cruel," she said. "Placing your pet in harm's way unnecessarily is cruel."

Needless to say, not everyone shares her point of view. Bill No. 3182-sponsored by Assemblyman Jay Webber (R), among others-proposes that failure to restrain an animal does not constitute animal cruelty. "It would prevent citizens from being fined or imprisoned for not putting a belt on their pets in their vehicles," Tom Weisert, Webber's chief of staff, told the Daily News.

While sympathetic to her goals, Weisert thinks Spencer's bill goes too far. "We should be able to reduce distracted driving and prevent animal cruelty without going to the point of forcing people to restrain their animals. It would be better to reasonably enforce existing laws rather than attempting to legislate common sense," Weisert argued.

Spencer doesn't buy the common sense argument. "We all thought that it was common sense that you shouldn't text while driving, until someone died. If there is a problem, we should try to prevent it before there is more loss of life down the road."

She noted that the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals already encourages drivers to restrain their dogs in the backseat.

Each bill seeks to clarify a hitherto disputed law. Then again, it's also possible that neither bill will move forward. The legislators will advocate the bills they support, but the speaker of the assembly will need to post the bill for a vote. The law may be clarified but it isn't certain.

"It could be as short as 3 months or as long as a year," Spencer said. "I hope to get things moving."

Weisert wants things to move in the other direction. "The assemblyman's bill will clarify that Fido doesn't need to be belted," Weisert said.

Regardless of whose interpretation of the law flourishes, this controversy has raised public awareness of this issue. Now New Jersey residents are left to wonder whether the sun will set on the iconic summertime image of dogs riding shotgun in the name of safety.